Point of Law: Section 415 of IPC mandates that there should be inducement from hands of accused to victim to part with any property and transaction should be tainted with dishonest intention right from its outset.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C. No. 8355 of 2021 pending before I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No. 217 of 2015 registered for offences punishable under Sections 196, 199, 420 and 463 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The order of taking cognizance dated 27-03-2021, for the aforesaid offences, is what drives the petitioner to this Court.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief for consideration of the lis, are as follows:

The 2nd respondent M/s Ad Bureau Advertising Private Limited is the complainant. Financial transactions between the complainant and M/s Mediaone Global Entertainment Limited which was represented by its Director one J. Murali Manohar generated disputes with regard to finances in connection with a Tamil cinema titled Kochadian. The Director of the said film was the petitioner’s daughter and the petitioner’s husband was the lead protagonist. The said financial dispute generated into wide publicity as it was in respect of a cinema that had its lead protagonist, a popular star in the Tamil cinema. All the electronic media wanted to publish the dispute between the Mediaone Global Entertainment Limited on the ground that the petitioner-wife of the said protagonist had executed a guarantee on behalf of Mediaone Global Entertainment Limited in favour of the complainant and had failed to honour it as the film went into losses.

3. It is contended that in order to capitalize the image of the star various media outlets both print and electronic began to get in touch with the petitioner, her family members, her managers etc. seeking her comments on the allegations so made by the complainant. The petitioner made a call to all the media not to publish anything without proper verification. Despite the request of the petitioner, it is contended that the media both electronic and print, began to publish and broadcast information of allegations made by the 2nd respondent/complainant, which according to the petitioner affected her dignity and defamed the name of her family. At that juncture, the petitioner knocked the doors of the civil Court at Bangalore against all the news agencies - 70 in number - seeking a restraint against all the 70 channels in publishing news with regard to allegations made by the complainant upon the petitioner or her family. A suit in O.S. No. 9312 of 2014 was filed on 01-12-2014 and a detailed order of injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner on 02-12-2014. The Court again hearing the parties on 13-02-2015 returned the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction and consequently, dissolved the order of injunction that was in operation. The petitioner called in question the said order before this Court in M.F.A. No. 2879 of 2015 which also came to be dismissed on 24-02-2016 for default. Both these orders have become final.

4. Contemporaneously, the complainant had registered a private complaint before the competent Court at Bangalore in P.C.R. No. 7847 of 2015. The learned Magistrate on accepting the private complaint, directed investigation to be conducted under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. pursuant to which, an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 09-06-2015 in Crime No. 217 of 2015 for offences punishable under Sections 196, 199, 420 and 463 of the IPC.

5. The allegation in the complaint made by the complainant was that a particular document which was not in existence in a media house and which also does not exist was produced before the civil Court at Bangalore in order to get jurisdiction to entertain the suit and take an order of injunction. The said document was forged and the petitioner had initiated proceedings under the aforesaid provision of law by producing a document which is forged before a court of law and thereby cheated the complainant and the Court. The petitioner called in question registration of the said complaint and consequent direction to investigate before this